The New Theology. Lecture №3 Anthropogenesis: from a human — object to a human — subject.

Lecture №3 Anthropogenesis: from a human — object to a human — subject. Geydar Dzhemal.

Last time we talked about thinking as a theomorphic aspect of a human — the only possible aspect, thanks to which a human achieves unity with the only thing that can be revealed to him from a divine source, with that aspect of providential thought that addresses him and whose content is his meaning and the meaning of history. It could be said that thinking, or, more precisely, thought in the construction that we described in the previous lecture, completely exhausts a true human, that is, that real human who is optimally a believer, a human led by the Mahdi, that is, that perfect human who finally realized the project intended for him in the Universe. It is thinking that is a purely human trait that makes it an exceptional creation, makes it the center. At the same time, ontologically, this center, as a kind of composition made of clay, having a certain construction scheme, does not have any advantages over other phenomena, other configurations, as it were, floating in space. There is nothing specifically outstanding in a human, and, by the way, this is noted in the Holy Scriptures of Abrahamism: in the Torah, in the Gospel, in the Quran. It is noted there that Dennitsa, Iblis, the Great, or, as they say in other words, the Supreme, Being objects to the Lord and the Forefather against the fact that Adam takes the first place in the Universe, saying that Adam is an imperfect creature that is made of clay, and he , Iblis, was created from fire and therefore refuses to bow to Adam — for which he was cast down. But not only Iblis objects to the Creator against the need to recognize the priority of this strange dual creature — and if we take into account all the elements of which he consists, then the triple one! Not only Iblis refuses to obey, but the angels, according to the Quran, also object to the Creator, their Creator and Lord, saying: “Why do You put a human on the earth as a viceroy, because he is weak, confusion will occur from him, blood will be shed because of him.” To which they receive a significant answer: “I know, but you do not know.” This answer already contains an interpretation vector for us. Because when the Creator says: “I know, but you do not know,” then the semantic content that can be known is assumed. What can you know? What is meant by what the Almighty says to the angels about the fact that “I know, but you do not know”, namely: why does He put a human as His viceroy? A human is set up for a certain plot, as an instrument that implements a project, a project that God knows about. Thus, here we are given a direct indication that the time of the sacred narrative, the creation of a human project, is not a simple and empty linear time: it is conceptual, plot-driven and charged with the providential dynamics of the transition from one stage to another.

By the way, this aspect of providence was well captured in Marxism as a hidden theology that implicitly relied on Protestantism. Until about the age of twenty, Marx was an idealist, a man of great theological pathos, a Hegelian with a bias in the theology of Protestantism, and this was reflected in his early works — what is called “early Marx”. On the whole, Marxism is a hidden theology. This is most optimally expressed in its historical part — in “istmat”, which considers history as a providential move from formation to formation, which in the end is a transition from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. The two key words in this hidden theology that actually make it theology, necessity and freedom, are fundamental theological categories that we will come to later. So, in the section of general anthropology, one could confine oneself to a reference to thinking and analyze the phenomenon of thinking. In reality, however, this is profoundly insufficient. We are interested not only in the theomorphic characteristics, the human constitution, given even more so in an ideal projection, because the thinking we have been talking about is the optimal achievement of the elect. This is not the construction of two triangles forming a square, inside which there is an “internal lightning”: one is a zigzag, and the other is a direct connection of the witness and the phenomenon along the axis. In fact, this is an image of architectonics, the internal architecture of thought, which characterizes the full-scale disclosure of the chosenness of the chosen creature, which has fully realized its purpose. It is clear that today practically none of ordinary mortal people has in an adequate form what we describe theoretically. With ordinary mortals in mind, I want to emphasize that the members of the Brahmin caste and the initiates of the pagan traditions have this, perhaps to an even lesser extent than ordinary people who simply did not go into any esotericism. Because thinking is a characteristic, if of esotericism, then of esotericism, fundamentally opposed to the Tradition that is based on the primacy of identity, on the primacy of unity — that is, a Tradition known to pagan peoples, ancient, classical Indians, Greeks, etc.

Thinking is a characteristic that goes deeply contrary to the fundamental primordial original Tradition, whether it is Hyperborean or Atlantean. Thinking, or rather, thought (because the word “thinking” smacks of procedurality, and procedurality is a conditional thing) as the final fixation of a reflective surface — dynamic, but at the same time all-encompassing — is what Noah called the Atlanteans to. He called them to it when he still had time and had not yet received instructions to build an ark to leave his people to their fate. This is what the chosen ones of all nations are calling for when they come to humanity or call upon a small group among them who are capable of making the inner hijra, or inner transition. The fact is that the principle of hijra, leaving one point and moving to another, migrating, is a symbolic manifestation of the ability to break with the idea, with a craving for unity, for cosmicity, for ontologism. An ordinary person feels like a microcosm, which includes all the elements and is in equilibrium harmony with the environment. What is the phrase of Christ (peace be upon him): “Many are called, few are chosen”? This is a call to these “cosmic creatures” to migrate from the Cosmos, to break with nature, to become anti-nature. There are few chosen among those called, that is, those who made the hijra, made the transition and laid a distance between themselves and the environment, which obeys the second law of thermodynamics — nature. We are not just interested in this construction, we are more interested in anthropogenesis: where does a human come from? If human is one of the creations among others, then God, when organizing the Universe, interprets phenomena that do not make sense, which are clots of external darkness. As we said in the last lecture, He gives them names and endows them with meaning — and thus the organized Universe comes into existence. But these interpretations and meanings are made for the human who is placed in the center, because the person placed in the center is the only one for whom these interpretations exist in this form, and the Universe is not created repeatedly in the same place. There is no semantic universe for a fox, for an angel, for a genie, for a goblin! For all myriads of possible creatures, there are no myriads of Universes in the same place, there is only one Universe (although it has many worlds), which has one center, and this is a human. But human is the very point of crisis. I remember that in one film, the attackers entered a store at night, where under the armored glass there is a necklace worth ten million dollars, they shoot at it for a long time with pistols, the armored glass withstands, they see that they can’t take it. And someone in desperation throws a coin, and it falls on the glass at the x-point. And this armored glass crumbles, because each armored glass has a geometrically small, vanishing, dimensioned point, which is a point of absolute crisis, puncture, weakness. Human in the endless myriads of stairs and worlds, in the gamma deployed between the great Heaven and the great Earth, is the only point of crisis, and if he fulfills his purpose, then this whole universe crumbles to dust and is replaced by a new one.

Therefore, we are interested in one nuance: everything was interpreted for a human, but human himself was one of the things that was interpreted! In some sense, he is also an object, because before putting him in the center of these very things of the Universe organized for him, God also “interpreted” him. That is, a human also arises as an object, which is then placed in the center and becomes special. Undoubtedly, a human first exists as an object, and then Adam (peace be upon him) is taken, who is this object, a clay doll, he already exists, and the Spirit of God is breathed into him, and after that, Holy Scripture tells us, Adam is sent as a Prophet. Adam is the Prophet who is sent, and in Arabic the root “rasoul” (rasala) means “to send”, that is, there is no connection with the word “saying” (as in Russian), but there is a connection precisely with giving a mission. Nabi is the same. In Hebrew, “prophet”, or “apostle”, also sounds “nabi”, the root also has the meaning of messenger, that is, the direction of the messenger. By the way, the word “angel” also means “messenger” in Greek. That is, all these functions are connected with the direction, with the mission, with the transmission of the Message. And if Adam was sent as a transmitter of a message, then he could not be the first person, the basis of all mankind, because he had to be sent to someone. The very title Rasul, that is, “sent”, already suggests that there is a certain environment, a certain space, let’s say — “adamomorphic”, — into which Adam is sent. This is where we come to the logical understanding that before a human becomes the center of the universe, for whom names are open and who interprets everything and sees no longer “spots” of phenomena, but things in their whole form and inner meaning, he must to be itself created as something interpreted by the Absolute Subject, the Creator, an object among others, which is no different from other phenomena. But then, thanks to the direction of Adam similar to him, that is, a human from humankind who is taken, but to whom the element of the Spirit of God is added, this human stands out, turns into a kind of ontological center of the Universe, turns into a subject. Now we must understand how this happens in the scheme of anthropogenesis. In the last lecture, we talked about the fact that a human is thrown into reality, which actually consists of a hierarchy of possibilities. In the scheme that we discussed in the last lecture, the first at the bottom lies the sphere of individual objects — relatively speaking, this is simply a single object in itself, which a human faces in his specific singularity. The second level of possibility is the possibility of being any other in place of this random single object. The third level — more universal and at the same time more negative — is not to be this single object with more success than it is, and with more success than to be something else instead of it, simply not to be at all. It is simpler, it is more universal, but at the same time it is more negative. The fourth level is the possibility of not to be for any thing at all, that is, of all those any things that can be instead of it — the possibility not to be for them. And, finally, the fifth, most universal and terrible level is the universal impossibility for everything to be. And we talked about the fact that as a result of this, those single things nevertheless appear, then an alternative set, and at the same time, each thing disappears, fulfilling its possibility of not to be, proving that this possibility is not empty. Why? Because there is a negative that is presented simultaneously and totally to all these five levels. That is, even the very impossibility for things to be is also denied. This minus, absolute negation, is also presented to them. It is presented because it can be presented to everything. What is this negation? This is true infinity. Not the infinity that a human observes (we have returned to this many times), when, with the openness of his gaze, he fills his spirit, his soul, his heart with the view of this horizon [Space that can be looked over;] and experiences the limitlessness of his perception. He sees a sky without a cloud or a star, the purity of unlimitedness. No, this is another infinity. This is true, but hidden from human infinity. Infinity, which tolerates nothing but itself, truly tolerates nothing. This is the infinity that is genuine, works exclusively for the denial of everything that is not it. This is not a yes to anything: when philosophers and metaphysicians tell us that everything is based on a universal yes, said to all possibilities, it is, as it were, a yes, said to all possibilities, and these possibilities already somehow differ from that simple universal yes.

In addition, we have seen that the more universal, the more negative. There is no yes at the top, said to anything. At the top, there is just no. But on this no there is an even more terrible no. Because it is not, the impossibility of all things to be — it is concretized, it is limited as a possibility, it is the impossibility of some things to be. And this can be presented with a pure simple “blunt” negation. This impossibility is cut to the root just like the possibility of one small thing to be. This is a scythe that mows everything: dandelions, daisies, simple grass. But we also talked about such an image: this denial is not visible, because it is like a sword that clearly cuts concrete phenomena below, and at the top appears as the impossibility of all things to be, that is, shunyata, emptiness, this denial coincides in form and, as it were, invested in these scabbards. The sword sheathed is not visible. But nevertheless, he does not cease to be from this. All the same, even being in the scabbard, he denies them, just as when pulled out of the sheath, he clearly denies the flesh. Now notice that this pure simple negation is that beyond which there is nothing. In reality, this possibility exists and is realized only because it is denied. This denial pervades everything. Thanks to it, all possibilities are realized. This simple negation knows no limits to itself, knows nothing but itself. True infinity. Negative but true infinity. What it is? In fact, this is the total affirmation that we find as a “sample” of affirmation — the initial, primary affirmation. Yes, it is negative: it manifests itself in the fact that it denies everything. But apart from it there is nothing, everything is denied. Therefore, it affirms only itself. This is the assertion. And if this is a statement, then this is the only absolute and true object with which we are dealing. In our research, we came to the conclusion that initially an absolute object is a statement that does not allow anything but itself, and therefore has a negative nature, because this statement coincides with the negation of everything that it is not. A simple and pure “minus” raised to the absolute. This is the Absolute, the universal solvent. This is the object. Where is the subject then? And the Subject is precisely what is denied by this negation.

After all, what is denial? It denies an alternative to itself, denies something that can exist apart from it. That is, it says: “I deny everything possible, but I mean that, apart from me, nothing is possible. If something claims to exist besides me, then it is a lie. It is pure impossibility.” An amazing thing: in denying, this negation posits a certain impossibility as a non-existent, I emphasize, non-existent alternative to itself. Negation posits impossibility as an alternative to itself. This impossibility does not exist. It doesn’t really exist. It is posited by this negation. This is an impossibility, which is the reverse inevitable side of total unlimited denial. And you think it’s not a factor? What is this illusion? No! In the global total denial, which passes through all five levels, thanks to this denial of all five levels, the realization of all these possibilities is created, goes through. That is, in every thing there is a negation inside, because every thing has not been and will not be, and everything, whatever it is, is not and will not be. But a thing exists, because its impossibility to arise is also denied — that’s why it arises. And through this, too, comes denial. And inside everything, it turns out, is the impossibility of an alternative to this negation. This is the Subject. Ultimately, this impossibility must be gathered somewhere and brought into focus. Negation is pure Darkness. Pure absolute Darkness that mows down everything. And the impossibility of resisting this Darkness is Light, unrevealed and diffused, which is even darker than this Darkness, because it is impossible. But there must be some kind of magnifying glass that can be brought to this Light, and then it will focus and a beam will appear. Human is that magnifying glass which gathers the impossibility into focus, which turns into a true reality, into a true factor. This non-existence, impossibility, non-existent alternative becomes action. It becomes the center. Let me remind you that, as we said in the first lecture, Parmenides stated: “Being is, non-being is not.” And he spoke, bearing in mind that there is Being, but there is no non-being, so it is pointless to talk about it. Yes, there is being, there is no non-being. This “non-being is not” is the second reality, and “being is” is the first reality. “There is no non-being” is not an illusion, not something that we sort of throw out of brackets, this is a second, much grander reality. Because “there is no non-being” is an alternative form of the statement. We are faced with the fact that a true affirmation is a negation. This is already a paradox. The affirmation turns out to be total negation, it is the only possible affirmation. And then we are faced with the fact that the alternative that it denies is precisely the point (because it is impossible), the non-existent point that pierces the totality of this negation, is posited by this negation, eternally reproduced by this negation. It is a certain center, a certain focus of everything.

We talked about the crisis — the crisis of being, consciousness, human. And we talked about the levels of the manifested crisis. But the first crisis, the original basis of the crisis, is that the affirmation is the infinity of negation, that is, the total negative is the only form of infinity that we can know. In our study, this is the first link. In fact, everything that we have said about thinking is the overcoming of this evil, which we find at the first step of our research. The only form of infinity that we know, that we find, that we discover, is, it turns out, infinity in the form of pure negative. And it cannot be otherwise, for what is infinity? This is the removal of boundaries. It is the absence of those. It is the rejection of any certainty. Otherwise it’s not infinity. But infinity, which is an affirmation, is such an infinity that does not presuppose any finite next to itself. There cannot be infinity, inside which a star, a cow, a speck of dust hangs — there cannot be such infinity. It is no longer infinity. Yes, you can say that in fact this is as it were not. And why does it exist anyway? Pure negativity does not raise such questions. Because if we are talking about a certain positive, about capacity, we say that there is a certain emptiness, then it is difficult to explain why something begins to crystallize from this emptiness. Now, if we are talking about true infinity as a simple and pure negation, there is no doubt about it — this infinity lives only due to the fact that it removes any finite. It is not a contradictory infinity, but a consistent absolute object that does not admit a subject. This non-existent non-admission is the Subject. Because the existence of an internal witness, a point of non-identity with nothing inside us, is the reverse side of negation, it is posited by negation. And it does not, as it were, limit this negation, because in fact it appears as a shadow of negation, as its reverse side. This is something that cannot exist. This is an impossibility. It is fixed as that center. Another thing is that this non-existent moment of the inner witness is, as we said, a promise. This is an inner promise, because it is a projection of the crisis. There cannot be such an infinity (infinity must also be self-sufficient), which is a simple and pure negation. Yes, we cannot logically imagine an infinity that is not negation. But pure negation, because it denies, is not self-sufficient. This is self-contradiction. Infinity must be self-sufficient. Negative infinity is not self-sufficient. Initially, in the bottomless basis of negativity, which permeates everything, there is a crisis, because infinity itself, apart from which nothing can be, is contradictory in its internal definition. This is a negative that is not self-sufficient, and at the same time — the only truly infinite.

This is a crisis, this is an explosion. And it considers itself an alternative as a non-existent opposition to this impossibility, which is, as it were, its shadow, the projection of this crisis. This projection of the crisis, this shadow, this non-existence is precisely the Spirit of God that was put into Adam. This is a point of discrepancy with everything This is an impossibility. Please understand correctly. It is not about the substance of God, not about His hypostasis, not about some aspect of His nature, because there is nothing like that. The Spirit of God is not a substantial particle of God, because there is no such particle, there is no substance. For the true nature of God is in His opposition, in the absolute non-identity of everything, which actually appears for us only in the fact that we meet with this empty trace. That is, we know that this trace is left, but we are dealing only with this imprint. And just this imprint is the impossibility that is focused inside us as in the original objects from the objects that are chosen to be the center. I hope that this ontological, or rather anthropogenic, preamble is more or less understandable. Because if we reduce, recapitulate, repeat again what we have gone through, then we get the following picture. There is an absolute object which admits no alternative to itself; it has a negative nature: it denies everything except itself; thus, he posits something around him as impossible, and this impossibility is precisely the only possible Subject that exists, thrown into the core of this five-layer reality, denied by the absolute object.

As a result, there is a hierarchy of a mass of interpretations: the objective world, which is constantly removed by this negativity, but inside this objective world there is, as it were, the reverse side or shadow of this total endless denial, and this is precisely the focus of subjectivity, which, as we said, is like a black mirror amalgam. Subjectivity is present, reflects, is not visible. The amalgam becomes visible only as a result of the implementation of this project of thinking, the thought that we talked about in the previous lecture. There is an inner center within us, through which we testify, because without it, if we were purely clay objects, we would be stones among stones, and we would not know, just as stones do not know that they lie in a pile of their own kind, so and we would not know that we are among objects, items, etc. But due to this point of negation (and not non-being: that is, we are “negated”, relatively speaking), the witness that is inside us is the result of denial, not non-being (“was not”, “will not be”), but active denial, and it is concentrated within us. This is the final basic element of that fundamental absolute initial crisis that we spoke about. It is like a rock below, on which all the energy of the crisis rests, the energy of inconsistency, the energy of the most primordial infinity, which is at the same time really infinite, but certainly not self-sufficient due to its negative, negatory nature. This energy of crisis rests on the rock of our inner center, the Parmenidean non-being, which does not exist, but which, due to this, is in fact the axis of perception and the axis of opposition to everything. This rock is the last fundamental element of the crisis. I want to point out and again draw your attention to the fact that natural human in his original state does not perceive this infinity, which consists of simple pure negation. In other words, he does not perceive either the absolute object or this amalgam within it, which is not visible, but makes everything visible. He also does not perceive the source of this amalgam, in relation to which the amalgam acts as a shadow. The natural human does not perceive the infinity of absolute negation. He perceives only the world of realized possibilities of five levels, which are manifested for him by this denial as a consequence, that is, due to denial, all these possibilities have become realized. Moreover, he perceives them (as we said at the last lecture) in reverse order. That is, at the top, in reality, there is the impossibility of being anything — the so-called empty sky. And he thinks that at the top is a universal yes, said to everything. Why? Because for him the nearer world, that is, the concentration surrounding him, consisting of single objects, blocks the long-term perspective — the one that presupposes the prevention of the existence of such objects. They are mixed because the natural human perceives the individual and the universal as if on the same plane, that is, there is no distance between him and his gaze. He perceives this external world, the identity of the individual concentrator, the concentration of individual phenomena and the concentration of the impossibility to be an individual phenomenon, as a kind of positive one, and calls it Being. In other words, he has a completely false perception, a false consciousness of Being, which is in fact deeply inverse to the true order.

Moreover, the natural human does not see negation behind this Being, because he believes that this Being is the only form of affirmation: he believes that this is the object, although in reality only the fierce element of pure negativity is the object. Naturally, the perceptual view of the first human, a fresh human, perceives the very principle of infinity as a kind of positive, as a kind of potential, full of possibilities. And everything that he perceives is the product of the activity of the second clay. We are talking about the fact that a human is created from two types of clay: one is liquid, silty, lower — refers to the sphere of the earth, and the other is dry, thin, slender and is a clay, conventionally called clay, a heavenly substance. Human is a mixture of these two clays. His primary, non-interpretive, pre-thinking consciousness is the direct product of the action, the manifestation of this celestial clay, to which the phenomenological Husserlian consciousness before interpretation belongs. This is intellectual intuition. It is simple direct contemplation, identification of oneself with the object. That is, all forms that are not related to thought and which a human considers immediate and direct knowledge, immediate and direct knowledge. But in reality it is nothing but an illusion! As we said in the last lecture, an illusion arises when a phenomenological object imposes its interpretation on the witness, that is, it is not the witness who gives his interpretation to the object, but the object gives out his interpretation, imposes it. The witness has the feeling that he has gained knowledge of the inner nature of the observed object by direct contemplation, but in reality he has allowed the object to dominate him. It’s not all that simple, because the interpretation that the object carries is also created by someone, and when we talk about sociology, we will move on to the one who creates these false interpretations. Human, like a clay doll, is buried under a heap of “Being” presented to him, which in fact is an aberrational perception, an aberrational understanding of the hierarchy of possibilities. Everything would have been completely hopeless if he had not been chosen for some instrumental role of that center, that point, hitting which breaks all the armored glass.

Now we must say what the Absolute Subject is. So far, we have been speaking in roundabout terms. We talked about the fact that there is a global total denial, which does not allow anything except itself. Thus, it, being an object, believes that the possibility of an alternative does not exist. This is a crisis situation connected with a contradiction in infinity itself. But the fact is that if this is a crisis, then this infinity is not infinite. There is infinity, but the crisis itself is its stop, its limitation. This limitation is an indication that in the abyss of impossibility lies an alternative to this annihilating all-encompassing object, negation, this total minus. In the depths of the impossible opposition to it, a certain prospect of an alternative is hidden, which, however, does not follow the line of the possible, for any possibility that opposes the minus is removed and annihilated. But the paradox is that the very impossibility, which is posited by negation, cannot be destroyed. Hidden in the depths of this is the prospect of stopping the infinite, canceling the infinite, overcoming infinity itself as a negative. This is the Absolute Subject, the absolute potential of overcoming infinity, because overcoming infinity can only be absolute: one cannot overcome infinity partially, infinity can only be overcome in an absolute way, that is, one can overcome its negative, or, rather, bring into place an affirmation that is a negation, a statement which is not positive, but which is transcendent to negation. The positive cannot counter the negative.

Hegel said that the terrible force of the negative takes over everything. It is impossible to resist the negative: the scythe of negation is not opposed by the sky and nothing in general is opposed, even the impossibility of all things to be, which, it would seem, is the most universal, the most empty, the most wrong, is also denied! But it is possible to transcend this negativity due to the fact that it is contradictory, due to the fact that this infinity is a kind of self-cancelling premise, depending precisely on its negative nature, behind it lies in the concentrated darkness of impossibility the prospect of the absolute cancellation of this negation. But it exists as non-existence — it does not exist — it exists in the form of Parmenidean non-being, which does not exist. From it comes a message that establishes a connection with the point of impossibility, the shadow of negation that is hidden in the object world. That is, a human is endowed with a shadow of this negation, and from the perspective of stopping the infinity of negation comes, as it were, a connection along a straight line. Let us say mythologically: this opposition to everything — this impossibility — is blown into the clay doll of Adam, consisting of two substances, as the Spirit of God, as a covenant from the perspective of stopping infinity, conquering infinity. Adam is sent to human objects. Some of the people-objects, to the extent that they hear a call from someone similar to themselves, but who received this “additive” in the form of the Spirit of God, a spark, heeding this call, form a community around Adam. And although the Spirit of God was not breathed directly into each of them, but by analogy, by “adoption”, they acquire in themselves the opening of a point of opposition, because this point of opposition is realized as the opening of that flower of thought that we spoke about yesterday. This thought is not substantive: it is not a substance, it is not something that can be implanted, put like a pearl, like a grain of sand into a shell, it is a kind of conceptual construct of such an imaginative order, which, if you hear the call and if you fall into resonance with it, opens in you, and the same point appears in you, as if you yourself were, if not Adam, then at least the son of Adam. And now people-objects turn into people — virtual subjects, they are not yet subjects.

The news, the gospel that infinity is victorious and surmountable, has yet to come to these virtual subjects, and it comes in the form of two stages. First, pagan history prepares people’s minds for the fact that this negative infinity exists and is called Doom. What is Doom? We have said that we will present a minus to everything, to the five layers of possibility, starting with the simple specifics of phenomena and ending with the impossibility of these phenomena to exist at all — emptiness, shunyata and its manifestations, etc. We will present this minus to everything — everything mows. This is Doom. And the consciousness of human has been preparing for many millennia for the fact that there is this denial — it is Doom, it is a hostile infinity, it is invincible, heroes, titans come out against it, who challenge and lose. This is a drama, this is the tragedy of the human vale. Remember, we talked about the narrative, about the plot, about the fact that a human is thrown with meaning against the will and thoughts of angels, with meaning placed at the center of history? The first act of this plot, the first act of this narrative are the characters who constantly challenge infinity. That is, you still need to reach the awareness of this negative! The naive humanity of the Golden Age, the human objects were in absolute harmony, they looked at infinity and thought: “This is a universal yes. And we are a consequence of this yes, which is in full resonance. After Adam came to the people-objects, they suddenly discovered that, it turns out, there is Doom, which destroys everything, which cancels all possibilities, thereby making them real — canceling makes them real, but it stands behind them as an absolute object, and we disappear into this object as small objects that the absolute object subtracts. They challenge, they go against Doom, they reveal the hero’s tragic failure in the face of the immensity of this roaring, raging Nothing. The next moment is the appearance of the Prophet, who tells them that Nothing can be defeated. Because Nothing assumes that impossibility, which paradoxically exists in its “non-beingness”.

This non-being is stronger than being. First, Doom gets a name, it gets concretized. Before that, it was doom like omnipotence. And at some point it was renamed, relatively speaking, in Time — it is called “Time” with a capital letter. This is an inexorable, eternal Time, but this is already the domestication of negation. In Arabic, time is called “dahr” — this is one of the semantic meanings of the word dahr, and when the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, turned to the Bedouins and began to convey to them the words of Revelation, the verses of the Quran that were revealed to him, the Bedouins began to object: “What are we hearing about the Absolute Subject? What are you telling us about the Absolute Subject? We know that there is only Doom, we live and die, and only dahr, that is, Time, kills us. And the answer to the Bedouin is this verse: “There is no winner but the Absolute Subject” (there is no winner but Allah). Allah is precisely the name of the Absolute Subject, the name of the One Who opposes endless negation, being hidden in complete transcendence. We can say this: the deepest foundation of the absence that is in our center, in the core of our hearts, thanks to which we are not identical to anything, this deepest foundation is the catharsis of the crisis of negative infinity, and it is this Absolute Subject, unknown to us, which is the semantic axis of any confrontation, any hijra, any departure, any non-identity. It is natural that between the Spirit of God, embedded in Adam, and existing virtually among the group of those who were called, who followed Adam and came out of him, the chain of Prophets — between this Spirit of God and this principle, the absolute principle of non-being, which does not exist, there is a certain practical axis, which is called the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not exclusively a Christian category, it is also an Islamic category. Some believe that only the archangel Gabriel, Jibril, is called the Holy Spirit. However, Jibril is the personified form in which the Holy Spirit appears to the prophets as the recipients of this impulse, this inspiration. In fact, the spark of the Spirit of God, which is inside virtual subjects, is, as it were, a passive analogue of that Holy Spirit, which is always associated, by the way, with the configuration of the concept of the thought that we talked about in the previous lecture. This is either a word (kalam) or a book — in one form or another, these are gospels associated with a configuration of a neo-ontological order. At the moment of arrival, connection, that very new knowledge, which is called Revelation, is formed. Revelation is the activation of the point of non-identity, which was originally put in Adam.

Activation of the point of non-identity and activation of the will to manifest this non-identity through the disclosure of providential thought, which we spoke about in the previous lecture. Revelation exists only because the content of Revelation cannot be obtained in any other way. One cannot perceive in a reflective way that which casts neither light nor shadow. That is, the mirror cannot perceive the black amalgam that is behind it, the eye cannot see itself. It is impossible for the principle of opposition, the source of opposition, to feel and experience itself, unless this is forced in some way from outside. In fact, this is the underlying reason for the rejection of all arguments about the so-called “natural religions”, that supposedly there is no gap between divinely revealed religions and those traditions that are based on intellectual intuition, contemplation, avatars, supernatural phenomena of some “non-human teachers” and etc. Because “natural religion” is based on a completely different content. Revelation exists precisely because in its ray, in its axis, the content of “natural religions” is cancelled. Anthropogenesis, which we were interested in at the beginning, is configured in this way. That is, the absolute object presupposes the non-existence or transreality of the Absolute Subject, but since this Absolute Subject, as it were, does not exist, in the highest sense, there is instead a viceroy — a virtual subject thrown into the dungeon of realizable possibilities, which is permanently denied by this, at first invisible, and then denoted as Doom by infinity, which this virtual subject opposes. Opposes unsuccessfully until the non-existent Absolute Subject from the abyss of impossibility posited by this infinite negation throws a direct beam at its center and activates it in the form of practical thought, providential thought, as a result of which the providential thought of God must be reflected and realized. Clay is overcome by this point of opposition. Perhaps this will seem strange to those who are used to linking anthropology and anthropogenesis with such descriptions of substances, structures, existences that are produced in terms of “freedom”, “necessity”, society, practices (labor or intellectual). We believe that all these things are illusory, peripheral, applied at best. In fact, the explanation of a human can only be based on fundamental terms, the logic of which is clear in itself: “unlimited”, “existence”, “non-existence”, “object”, “subject”, that is, absoluteness displaces everything except itself, and this repression continues to exist, passing from the periphery to the center, just as a grain of sand begins to live inside a mollusk, gives birth to a pearl there, and the mollusk itself knows nothing about it. The absolute object believes that there is nothing but it, and in this assumption it receives a “hole”, a hole of some opposing absence, which lives as a kind of other reality, as a result of which there is a project to overcome this absolute object. Here, relatively speaking, is the “mechanics” of anthropogenesis. What concerns the practical existential parameters of human realization, we will discuss in lectures that will concern sociology and those projects that you wrote down in that tree — in the tree of epistemology. Question from the audience It is interesting that the Eleatics, Xenophanes, have something, and it is one…

Parmenides said that there is being, but there is no non-being, which they are trying to hush up. He said that everything that arises — arises from non-being and is destroyed in non-being. The interpretation here is obvious. The fact is that when he says “arises”, he still speaks of things, he does not speak of phenomena in that interpretation, because in the time of the Eleatics they did not yet distinguish in the Husserlian sense a phenomenon before its interpretation and a thing that we know as such with its intellectual content. Only Plato for the first time really saw that every thing has its own idea — he understood this idea in a completely different way than interpretation: he believed that this idea is some kind of independent reality. That is, he thought that the phenomenon is unconditionally interpretable, he believed that a horse is a horse not only for us, but also for an animal, for a wolf, for a Martian, that is, it is an “unconditional horse”. Which is nonsense, because when a simple Aztec saw a horse, it was a paradoxical phenomenon for him: he could not know that it was a horse, he was a human who had never seen a horse, it was not interpreted for him. And Plato naively believed that any subject is unconditional. And even more so before Plato: when the Eleatics spoke about objects, they didn’t mean “Rorschach spots”, they meant objects that already had names and contents for them. And what is it — “arising from non-being”? Arose from non-being — this is a kind of “blot”, floating in the fog, which receives an interpretation. Another thing is that this interpretation exists only in the eyes of the interpreter.

We have only one subject — a human, so he looks at everything and names everything in a total way. This is a tree, this is a desert, this is a bush, this is a house. Suppose he goes mad or dies. All these blots, interpreted by him as such and which he uses as such, which actually materially constitute his environment, at the moment when a human ceases to interpret them, again plunge into this very non-being. This is one explanation. The second explanation comes from the five-layer hierarchy of possibilities. That is, why do phenomena occur? Because universal negation denies the impossibility for it to be, denies the possibility for it not to be, denies the possibility of each given specific individual thing not to be, denies the possibility for any other thing to be instead of this phenomenon, and as a result of this denial, this particular phenomenon arises at the lowest level. Concrete phenomena arise as a product of total negation applied to all negative alternatives of this single phenomenon, as if they arise from non-being. But further on, the phenomenon is denied, so it returns to non-being, it returns to an alternative to itself, to the possibility for itself not to be, it goes out there, etc. Because it is also denied, it does not arise from non-being, but from a negative possibility, from the possibility for something else to be or not to be for it, and leaves, since this possibility for it not to be is also realized through its negation. All possibilities in relation to a particular object are realized: its possibility to be, its possibility not to be, the possibility for something else to be instead of it … They are realized because everything is denied at once. It is denied at once, being contradictory in relation to each other, and realized at once. This can be described in a primitive form: it arises from non-being and goes into non-being. In fact, this is simply the work of universal denial, which is the only independent affirmation, scythe of the universal negativity, which carries within itself a total, absolute, insurmountable crisis. The fact is that catharsis, that is, the consequence of this insurmountable crisis, is exactly that Absolute Subject that exists for us, relatively speaking, as Parmenides’ “non-being is not.” “Being is” is the sphere in which a natural naive human swims, and “non-being is not” is the sphere of the subject, which is not perceived by him. The Parmenidean second part of the phrase ignites like broken glass on a heap of rubbish when a ray of the sun touches it: bottle glass flares up immediately like a diamond, the Parmenidean phrase flares up at the moment of Revelation, and then we understand that “there is no non-being” is much more weighty and important than “Being is”. Because, in fact, “being is” as an object for negation, and in fact that “non-being that does not exist” is precisely the negation of negation. Therefore, the Eleatics could not go beyond the scope of the horizons, the concentres of the possibility of sight. The infinity they perceived, they perceived in a simple, naive way. This infinity was always positive. The fact is that philosophers are not a heroic people. The heroes have some proto-intuition of the prophets, the heroes seek the coming of the prophets. They perceive the reality they come to as the original absolute evil, and they perceive their opposition, that is, the will to resist it in their heart, as the root of positive. In other words, the positive is not outside (outside only evil), but good begins with the will to resist it, it is nowhere else, and since it is nowhere else for the hero, he is doomed. This is the tragedy.

As for philosophers, we said earlier that the metaphysician tries to extinguish a concrete thing in the infinite, and the philosopher strives for infinity, tries to master it through interpreting it as a certain concreteness, that is, he makes infinity something concrete: everything is water or everything is fire. etc. He strives to make infinity manual. Naturally, this attempt fails, but it is a conformist attempt. That is, the philosopher’s pathos is always directed to the idea of identity. Only a vector opposite to the metaphysical one: not from earth to heaven, but from heaven to earth, thickening the sky to become a thing. This is not a heroic path. The heroic path is prototheological. And the true theologian realizes catharsis through Revelation, the liberation and resurrection of the hero already in his perfect form. And that architectonics, which is spelled out in the previous lecture, is the fullness of the fulfilled victory over Doom, or the realized project of heroism.